Zone1 Let's actually DISCUSS the origins and intent of the "Due Process Clause" of the Constitution.

[MarathonMike]

Both the 5th and 14th Amendments contain the same 11 word phrase to define the term "Due Process'. Here it is:

No one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Now here are some very important dates relevant to Due Process.:

The 5th amendment was ratified in 1791
The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.
The first Office of Immigration was established in 1891.

So let those dates sink in. The "Due Process" clause was written 100 YEARS BEFORE THE POSSIBILITY OF A PERSON BEING AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. It was repeated again in the 14th Amendment to specifically defend the rights of freed slaves who were GRANTED US Citizenship.

I contend that these facts SUMMARILY INVALIDATE the claim that an illegal immigrant TODAY has the same due process rights as a US CITIZEN.

If you disagree, present a cogent argument as to why an illegal immigrant today has the same due process rights as a US citizen.

 

[Crepitus]

Both the 5th and 14th Amendments contain the same 11 word phrase to define the term "Due Process'. Here it is:

No one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Now here are some very important dates relevant to Due Process.:

The 5th amendment was ratified in 1791
The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.
The first Office of Immigration was established in 1891.

So let those dates sink in. The "Due Process" clause was written 100 YEARS BEFORE THE POSSIBILITY OF A PERSON BEING AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. It was repeated again in the 14th Amendment to specifically defend the rights of freed slaves who were GRANTED US Citizenship.

I contend that these facts SUMMARILY INVALIDATE the claim that an illegal immigrant TODAY has the same due process rights as a US CITIZEN.

If you disagree, present a cogent argument as to why an illegal immigrant today has the same due process rights as a US citizen.

And every court ruling until possibly the Roberts court, the most biased and corrupt court in history, has ruled differently from your opinion.

 

[alang1216]

Both the 5th and 14th Amendments contain the same 11 word phrase to define the term "Due Process'. Here it is:

No one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Now here are some very important dates relevant to Due Process.:

The 5th amendment was ratified in 1791
The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.
The first Office of Immigration was established in 1891.

So let those dates sink in. The "Due Process" clause was written 100 YEARS BEFORE THE POSSIBILITY OF A PERSON BEING AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. It was repeated again in the 14th Amendment to specifically defend the rights of freed slaves who were GRANTED US Citizenship.

I contend that these facts SUMMARILY INVALIDATE the claim that an illegal immigrant TODAY has the same due process rights as a US CITIZEN.

If you disagree, present a cogent argument as to why an illegal immigrant today has the same due process rights as a US citizen.

If you can claim someone in the US is an illegal immigrant and needs to be deported, how is anyone, citizen or not, protected if there is no 'due process'? Can a President just round people up and put them in prison or deport them to a foreign prison. Is there no check on his actions?

 

[dblack]

If you can claim someone in the US is an illegal immigrant and needs to be deported, how is anyone, citizen or not, protected if there is no 'due process'? Can a President just round people up and put them in prison or deport them to a foreign prison. Is there no check on his actions?

That's what they're after, yes.

 

[MarathonMike]

If you can claim someone in the US is an illegal immigrant and needs to be deported, how is anyone, citizen or not, protected if there is no 'due process'? Can a President just round people up and put them in prison or deport them to a foreign prison. Is there no check on his actions?

Asking questions is not presenting a cogent argument about Due Process.

 

[dblack]

Asking questions is not presenting a cogent argument about Due Process.

If you can claim someone in the US is an illegal immigrant and needs to be deported, how is anyone, citizen or not, protected if there is no 'due process'?

 

[progressive hunter]

If you can claim someone in the US is an illegal immigrant and needs to be deported, how is anyone, citizen or not, protected if there is no 'due process'?

what do you mean by due process??

 

[itfitzme]

...

I contend that these facts SUMMARILY INVALIDATE the claim that an illegal immigrant TODAY has the same due process rights as a US CITIZEN.

If you disagree, present a cogent argument as to why an illegal immigrant today has the same due process rights as a US citizen.

Well, then you'd be summarily wrong.

BECAUSE, "No one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

And your complete lack of a cogent argument.

Seriously, to put a fine point on it, nothing you stated is anything close to supporting your contention. If anything, they demonstrate that you are summarily wrong. Let this sink in. It had to be stated not once, not twice, but three, and four times in order to get it through the thick prejudice heads like yours that

"No one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." means "NO ONE" Let's say that out loud, "NO ONE".. not anyone.

And there is a simple, objective, and logical reason for this.
Can you think of what that is?
Do you really need to have it explained to your?
Are you really this stupid or just incredibly skilled at denial?

Wow, MarathonMike.

 

[Donald H]

In America the president can now do practically whatever he damn well pleases!

That's become necessary and so it's all good! The war against Russia was ill-conceived by the commie left.

Leftist bias of the courts must be eliminated!

 

[dblack]

Both the 5th and 14th Amendments contain the same 11 word phrase to define the term "Due Process'. Here it is:

No one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Now here are some very important dates relevant to Due Process.:

The 5th amendment was ratified in 1791
The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.
The first Office of Immigration was established in 1891.

So let those dates sink in. The "Due Process" clause was written 100 YEARS BEFORE THE POSSIBILITY OF A PERSON BEING AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. It was repeated again in the 14th Amendment to specifically defend the rights of freed slaves who were GRANTED US Citizenship.

I contend that these facts SUMMARILY INVALIDATE the claim that an illegal immigrant TODAY has the same due process rights as a US CITIZEN.

If you disagree, present a cogent argument as to why an illegal immigrant today has the same due process rights as a US citizen.

Because rights aren't reserved for citizens.

You keep steering around an important question: If you are accused of being an illegal immigrant, should you be allowed to prove your innocence (due process)? Or should you be deported immediately?

 

[progressive hunter]

Because rights aren't reserved for citizens.

You keep steering around an important question: If you are accused of being an illegal immigrant, should you be allowed to prove your innocence (due process)? Our should you be deported immediately?

what due process do illegals get??

 

[dblack]

what due process do illegals get??

The same due process as anyone else. You don't seem to get this, or just don't want to. If anyone is deprived of this right, everyone is. Can you answer the question you avoided?

 

[MarathonMike]

If you can claim someone in the US is an illegal immigrant and needs to be deported, how is anyone, citizen or not, protected if there is no 'due process'?

The due process clause as written clearly and specifically protects the rights of US citizens. If some is clearly NOT a US citizen then by the establishment of our Federal immigration policies established in 1891, they do not CONSTITUTIONALLY have due process rights.

You don't "claim" someone is an illegal immigrant or not. That person is only a US citizen based on official birth records.

 

[martybegan]

If you can claim someone in the US is an illegal immigrant and needs to be deported, how is anyone, citizen or not, protected if there is no 'due process'? Can a President just round people up and put them in prison or deport them to a foreign prison. Is there no check on his actions?

1. Identify the person who you have detained.
2. Confirm said person is here illegally.
3. Deport said person back to their country of origin.

Due process.

 

[airplanemechanic]

If you can claim someone in the US is an illegal immigrant and needs to be deported, how is anyone, citizen or not, protected if there is no 'due process'? Can a President just round people up and put them in prison or deport them to a foreign prison. Is there no check on his actions?

Trump didn't put anyone in prison. Trump can't order anyone imprisoned in a foreign country. Trump deported a known gang banger wife beater with a deportation order (no, 2 deportation orders) against him back to his home country. THEY put in him prison. If you don't like that, talk to El Salvador. Not Trump.

 

[MarathonMike]

Well, then you'd be summarily wrong.

BECAUSE, "No one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

And your complete lack of a cogent argument.

Seriously, to put a fine point on it, nothing you stated is anything close to supporting your contention. If anything, they demonstrate that you are summarily wrong. Let this sink in. It had to be stated not once, not twice, but three, and four times in order to get it through the thick prejudice heads like yours that

"No one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." means "NO ONE" Let's say that out loud, "NO ONE".. not anyone.

And there is a simple, objective, and logical reason for this.
Can you think of what that is?
Do you really need to have it explained to your?
Are you really this stupid or just incredibly skilled at denial?

Wow, MarathonMike.

As my timeline clearly states, there was no possibility of being an illegal immigrant WHEN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WAS WRITTEN. It was CLEARLY WRITTEN to protect the rights of US CITIZENS. I can't spell it out any simpler than that.

 

[Blaster]

Due process was not important under the Obama and Biden administrations. Judges ignored it then.

 

[Stryder50]

If you can claim someone in the US is an illegal immigrant and needs to be deported, how is anyone, citizen or not, protected if there is no 'due process'?

"due process" begins with showing legal identification of who you are, what nation you are from, and if not a citizen of the USA (per your ID) than showing your passport and visa.

Those apprehended at the border and shortly after entering this country illegally, don't need due process have been caught committing a crime and are expelled immediately.

 

[airplanemechanic]

As my timeline clearly states, there was no possibility of being an illegal immigrant WHEN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WAS WRITTEN. It was CLEARLY WRITTEN to protect the rights of US CITIZENS. I can't spell it out any simpler than that.

Which means you can't deprive an illegal of life, liberty or property. They have no life here, no liberty and no property. They are ILLEGAL. Their MERE EXISTENCE IS A CRIME. Deport and be done.

 

[TNHarley]

1. Identify the person who you have detained.
2. Confirm said person is here illegally.
3. Deport said person back to their country of origin.

Due process.

What reasonable suspicion would they have to legally detain them?